274 P.3d 781
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mascareñas served 17+ years as a City Parking Division clerk; Torres implemented progressive discipline from late 2004 into 2005.
- Her discipline included an official verbal warning (Jan 3, 2005), a March 16 pre-determination hearing with a March 28 reprimand, and a June 10 verbal reprimand for time/absences and other conduct.
- August 2, 2005 pre-determination hearing led to a three-day suspension; mediation resulted in an agreement to improve punctuality and performance.
- August 14, 2005 she applied for intermittent FMLA leave; leave was approved retroactively September 2, 2005, but she did not take leave until September 26, 2005.
- September 26-28, 2005 she left early during an investigation; she later was informed of ongoing FMLA issues and a doctor’s note requirement; recertification was sought and leave was later cancelled.
- Termination followed for failure to report to work; post-termination hearing found merit-system violations harmless and City had just cause; district court affirmed; civil complaint then dismissed on preclusion grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over administrative appeal | Mascareñas sought review of the personnel board’s decision via Rule 1-074; docketing delays violated certiorari timing. | The appeal was untimely under Rule 12-505, depriving this Court of jurisdiction. | Lacked jurisdiction; untimely petition for writ of certiorari invalidates review. |
| Preclusion of breach of contract claim | Res judicata does not bar the contract claim; it should be raised in the administrative proceeding. | Chavez controls; res judicata bars the contract claim as it was within the merit-system proceeding. | Breath of contract claim barred by res judicata. |
| Collateral estoppel—FMLA and due process predicates | FMLA and due process issues should be litigated anew; they were not identical to the personnel board issues. | Collateral estoppel precludes those factual predicates based on the personnel board findings. | Collateral estoppel precluded litigating the predicates of the FMLA and due process claims. |
| Application of collateral estoppel to prior findings | The prior findings were not identical in cause of action and should not bar the civil case. | The personnel board’s findings were actually litigated and necessarily decided, justifying collateral estoppel. | Collateral estoppel properly applied; prior findings precluded relitigation of those issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, 124 N.M. 479, 952 P.2d 474 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (precludes breach of contract claims via res judicata while limiting board jurisdiction over constitutional/statutory claims)
- Strickland v. City of Albuquerque, 130 F.3d 1408 (10th Cir. 1997) (post-termination claims must generally be raised in state review of personnel board decision)
- C & H Constr. & Paving Co. v. Citizens Bank, 93 N.M. 150, 597 P.2d 1190 (Ct. App. 1979) (collateral estoppel and res judicata principles outlined)
- Rex, Inc. v. Manufactured Housing Committee, 119 N.M. 500, 892 P.2d 947 (N.M. 1995) (two-step collateral estoppel analysis for prior adjudications)
- Larsen v. Farmington Mun. Sch., 2010-NMCA-094 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (full and fair opportunity to litigate as a factor in collateral estoppel analysis)
- Shovelin v. Cent. N.M. Elec. Coop., Inc., 115 N.M. 293, 850 P.2d 996 (N.M. 1993) (collateral estoppel rationale cited; prior administrative decisions may preclude later actions)